Pages

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Wedding Wednesday: Mystery Bride

Wedding Wednesday is a daily
prompt at Geneabloggers that asks family historians to create a post in which
the main focus is wedding photos, announcements, and invitations.

Isn’t
this bride lovely? My dad was given this
photo many years ago because he was especially close to his maternal
grandmother. So we’ve always thought
this was Mary Theresa Sheehan Killeen Walsh’s wedding portrait.

But
that can’t be.

Mary
Theresa married her first husband John Joseph Killeen in 1893. He died in 1905. Brides
in 1893 would have dressed like this:

17 comments:

I see your dilemma in tracing who the bride actually is. She is a gorgeous looking bride, I love the headdress and her shoes - sling-backs and showing a bit of leg - how daring - it must be 1920's or early 1930's?

A fascinating post with lovely photographs to illustrate your dilemma. I liked the way you showed typical wedding dresses of the period when Maria Theresa married her two husbands as evidence that she could not be the bride. . . What struck me about your original photographs was that it looked more like an artist's portrait - or was I deceived by the studio backcloth? Also the pose was so different from the usual formal wedding photographs of the 1920's that we see. Good luck with your search to identify who she is. . . . .

What a beautiful photo! The bride's nose does look different from your grandaunts. Perhaps the bride was a good friend of the family and that's why the photo was kept. I've found photos of friends of my grandparents in their photo album.

I'm thinking possibly someone very dear to his grandmother? She certainly was stunning, and so lavish a style for a bride too, don't you think? I really enjoyed the other brides as well. It is true, they so often all followed the style of the period, for the most part.

"Lavish" -- yes. That's how I see it. I always thought my aunts Helen and Mae exuded the air of fine social standing and means. But this bride doesn't look at all like the Helen of her scrapbook. Mae's younger self is here and there in the scrapbook, but no wedding photos of anybody. So maybe it is a friend or cousin.

The minute I saw that photo, Wendy, it seemed to shout, "1920s!" I wouldn't be so quick to eliminate Mary Theresa's daughters, though. I agree with Heather: the angle makes this a difficult comparison. Then, the typical '20s style hairdo masks the eyebrows and even the outer edge of the shape of the eyes. All that's left to go by are relative proportions of nose, lips and chin.

Are there any other relatives that would be possibilities, based on the estimated date of the wedding?

The daughters by Mary Theresa's second husband are out. One is my grandmother, and I know that's not her. The other two married much later than this portrait would indicate. But I'm taking another look at Mae, based on that mouth. I spied a picture of her as an older woman in the 1970s and there's something about that mouth. Not to mention those ankles and long, narrow feet -- they look like the same feet I remember, even the positioning.

Search This Blog

Award Free Zone

About Me

My name is Wendy. About twenty years ago, I helped my mother research the Jolletts. Since retiring from teaching, I have expanded my research which I share here. When I’m not looking for my own family, I index for FamilySearch and the Greene County Historical Society.
Welcome to Jollett Etc. Please leave a comment to let me know you were here. If you have more information or believe we are related, EMAIL ME at wendymath at cox dot net